2012 (1) TMI 406 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Habeas corpus petition challenging the order of detention u/s 307 IPC and u/s 302 IPC, delay in communicating the order of detention, short notice for State Advisory Board meeting, failure to inform family members of the detenu, and delay in passing the order of detention.

Challenge to Order of Detention: The detenu's mother filed a habeas corpus petition seeking to quash the order of detention dated 24.8.2011, citing non-furnishing of crucial documents, delay in communication of the order, and lack of information to family members.

Non-furnishing of Documents: The detaining authority failed to provide copies of FIRs despite requests, impacting the detenu's ability to make a proper representation, as per legal precedents emphasizing the detenu's right to access all relied-upon documents promptly.

Delay in Communication: The order of detention, passed on 24.8.2011, was only communicated on 16.9.2011, without any explanation for the 12-day delay, which was deemed a vitiating factor affecting the detenu's rights.

Short Notice for Advisory Board Meeting: The detenu was given insufficient time to prepare for the State Advisory Board meeting, violating the detenu's right to make an effective representation, as established in previous legal cases.

Failure to Inform Family Members: The detenu's family members were not informed of the detention order, contravening the detenu's right to have familial support and assistance, as highlighted in legal judgments emphasizing the importance of such notifications.

Delay in Passing Order of Detention: There was an unexplained delay of 33 days between the detenu's arrest and the passing of the detention order, which was considered excessive and unexplained, leading to the quashing of the order of detention.

Judgment: The High Court allowed the habeas corpus petition, setting aside the order of detention dated 24.8.2011 and ordering the detenu's immediate release unless required in another case, based on the various grounds of challenge successfully argued by the petitioner's counsel.